Impeachment Related: GAO Determines Trump Violated Impoundment Control Act

[Cow Poke]

And there's this...

The GAO Ruled Obama Broke The Law in 2014, But No One Called for His Impeachment

[Cow Poke]

Bergdahl Swap Violated Law, GAO Says



But, hey, that was Obama, so...

[Sam]

And there's this...

The GAO Ruled Obama Broke The Law in 2014, But No One Called for His Impeachment

I will assume you've read both GAO memos. What were the circumstances of the Obama administration's violation of Section 8111 and how do they compare with the Trump administration's violation?

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

I will assume you've read both GAO memos. What were the circumstances of the Obama administration's violation of Section 8111 and how do they compare with the Trump administration's violation?

--Sam

Lemme guess... one was Obama and one was Trump. (and it wasn't just that one occurrence)


I'll let myself out.

[Sam]

Lemme guess... one was Obama and one was Trump.


I'll let myself out.

Probably for the best. Feel free to come on back if you want to add substantive remarks but don't come back if you're just gonna drop links and snark.

A discussion about the two violations and why one is involved with impeachment and the other was not would be substantive and welcome. But you gotta be in for the work.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Probably for the best. Feel free to come on back if you want to add substantive remarks but don't come back if you're just gonna drop links and snark.

I might drop by when you stop being so full of yourself.

(just for fun, if you keep addressing me, I can keep responding)

[Sam]

I might drop by when you stop being so full of yourself.

(just for fun, if you keep addressing me, I can keep responding)

I'm an honor-system kind of guy. I've made a request that is valid, reasonable, and agreeable. If you keep flouting it so you can get some jabs in without being a meaningful partner in the discussion, I'm not going to sic the cops on you.

You merely showcase a bad character trait.

I would rather, and I ask again, that you not derail or clutter the thread. If you can and want to discuss the topic, please put in the work and provide a substantive post. If not, please leave and don't come back until you're able to have that discussion.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

It's not for the judicial branch to determine;

Actually it is. And they have clarified and invalidated more than one part of the original Act.

the judicial branch can certainly make a ruling on the matter, if a valid claim is brought to it. But, absent that, the GAO is making a determination that the executive branch violated the ICA.

And being a Legislative entity, can assign no punitive value to their accusation. Their determination is nothing more than a formal charge brought by the state. It's up to a judicial entity to decide.

You have not provided any sort of rebuttal to that assessment except to 1) say footnotes count, even though OMB implemented the footnote option explicitly to avoid directly informing Congress of the hold according to law

Not true. You don't know what those footnotes are, do you?

and 2) some trash-talking about GAO.

No I didn't. I merely put them in their proper place in this matter.

[One Bad Pig]

I will assume you've read both GAO memos. What were the circumstances of the Obama administration's violation of Section 8111 and how do they compare with the Trump administration's violation?

--Sam

Three, actually (which you'd know if you'd actually clicked through to CP's link and read it ).

[rogue06]

I'm an honor-system kind of guy. I've made a request that is valid, reasonable, and agreeable. If you keep flouting it so you can get some jabs in without being a meaningful partner in the discussion, I'm not going to sic the cops on you.

You merely showcase a bad character trait.

I would rather, and I ask again, that you not derail or clutter the thread. If you can and want to discuss the topic, please put in the work and provide a substantive post. If not, please leave and don't come back until you're able to have that discussion.

--Sam

As he noted, if you keep addressing or talking about someone that you asked to leave then they have the right to respond and don't have to leave until you stop. It really is that simple

[Sam]

Actually it is. And they have clarified and invalidated more than one part of the original Act.



And being a Legislative entity, can assign no punitive value to their accusation. Their determination is nothing more than a formal charge brought by the state. It's up to a judicial entity to decide.



Not true. You don't know what those footnotes are, do you?



No I didn't. I merely put them in their proper place in this matter.

I'll address the substantive part of this post:

The OMB's footnotes were not delivered to Congress, I believe, but to DOD. And Sandy inserted the footnote, according to his testimony, because he had brought up his concerns to Duffey that holding the funds would constitute a violation of the ICA.

The GAO determined that a footnote is not a replacement for direct notification to Congress and we know why Congress wasn't directly notified: OMB was being told to hold the funds without being given a legitimate reason why the funds needed to be held. OMB, earlier last year, had tried to say that the funds were being held over an intra-agency review process -- a rationale we now know was a lie. So OMB was in the dark and was intent on keeping Congress in the dark and so violated the ICA by not only failing but actively avoiding its obligation to notify Congress.

--Sam

[Sam]

As he noted, if you keep addressing or talking about someone that you asked to leave then they have the right to respond and don't have to leave until you stop. It really is that simple

I made my point clearly and I'm not quibbling over rules and moderation. I've asked people to keep this thread on track by making substantive posts and said that I'm not looking to enforce moderation with that request. People can show some respect and restraint or not.

--Sam

[Sam]

Three, actually (which you'd know if you'd actually clicked through to CP's link and read it ).

I read the GAO memo and I've got it bookmarked for when anyone wants to compare the two. But I don't need to be comprehensive in a reply to a link-drop, either!

--Sam

[JimL]

Bergdahl Swap Violated Law, GAO Says



But, hey, that was Obama, so...

Trumps violation of the impoundment act is just one part of a much worse and dangerous violation of the law. Had Trump only violated the Impoundment Act he no doubt wouldn't be being impeached for that alone.

[Cow Poke]

Trumps violation of the impoundment act is just one part of a much worse and dangerous violation of the law. Had Trump only violated the Impoundment Act he no doubt wouldn't be being impeached for that alone.

Perhaps the Dems should have led with that instead of grasping at conspiracies?